On Thu, 26 Nov 2009, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Jose E. Roman <jroman at dsic.upv.es> wrote: > > > > On 26/11/2009, Lisandro Dalcin wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 2:20 PM, Jose E. Roman <jroman at dsic.upv.es> > >> wrote: > >>>> > >>> We fixed slepc-dev so that PETSC_ARCH_NAME is not required anymore. > >>> > >> > >> Jose, could you elaborate a bit what would the rules be now for SLEPc? > >> Building SLEPc with a prefix build of PETSc will require SLEPc's > >> configure to also pass explicitly a--prefix and do "make install" > >> after the build? > >> > >> I still have to figure out how to make both models (I mean, prefix vs. > >> multi-arch) builds work in the case of petsc4py/slepc4py and their > >> dependencies on themselves and with core PETSc/SLEPc... > > > > SLEPc can be setup with or without prefix, irrespective of whether PETSc is > > prefixed or not. > > > > Since we need a PETSC_ARCH, one could set an arbitrary value of PETSC_ARCH, > > then configure (with or without prefix)+make+(make install). > > > > If the user does not set PETSC_ARCH, then SLEPc's configure will tell the > > user to set PETSC_ARCH=unknown before invoking make. > > > > OK, now Jose just introduced another standard: an non-prefix SLEPc > build with a prefix PETSc build is equivalent to a non-prefix PETSc > with PETSC_ARCH=unknown, and... This is a nightmare... I'm a bit lost > about what to support and what not in petsc4py/slepc4py...
The way I look at it - the primary complexity here is from PETSc buildsystem. Because PETSc buildsystem supports both types of builds - 'prefix' and 'regular' - one is forced to use PETSC_ARCH 'during build process' - even with a prefix build [even though it doesn't make any sense to this gnu build model]. Once we force this on users - I don't think we are justified in removing traces of this intermediate step - if slepc/petsc4py would like to use info. To me - it makes perfect sense for these packages to mimick both the PETSc build modes as closly as possible [both modes]. So if they need PETSC_ARCH used during PETSc build - then thats fine. Perhaps it should be named PETSC_ARCH_value_used_at_build_time - or a more descriptive name to satisfy Barry's concerns. Satish
